On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > Armin K. wrote: >> On 07/14/2013 07:20 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> kre...@higgs.linuxfromscratch.org wrote: >>>> Author: krejzi >>>> Date: Sun Jul 14 09:26:00 2013 >>>> New Revision: 11411 >>>> >>>> Log: >>>> this looks ugly. >>>> >>>> Modified: >>>> trunk/BOOK/introduction/welcome/changelog.xml >>> >>>> - <para>[bdubbs] - Update to boost_1_54_0.</para> >>>> + <para>[bdubbs] - Update to boost-1.54.0.</para> >>> >>> It may look ugly, but upstream names the package with underscores. Yes, >>> I agree that it's a poor naming scheme. > >> I'd appreciate if we use naming and versioning as in the book, not the >> upstream tarball one. > > I'm afraid that I don't agree. The names in the book should reflect the > tarball names when using a version. There are many deviations though > that I really don't like. For instance, we use 'ISO Codes-3.44' when > the tarball name is 'iso-codes-3.44'. > > Sometimes we capitalize the names we use (e.g. Apr-1.4.8, > Aspell-0.60.6.1, etc) and sometimes we don't (e.g. libassuan-2.1.1, > libatasmart-0.19, etc). > > My desired rule of thumb is to use the tarball name as defined by the > package maintainer. I realize that this creates a problem when using > the name at the start of a sentence where the normal rule is to > capitalize or when using the tarball name as a proper name that is also > usually capitalized, however I think we should be consistent everywhere > we use the tarball name. >
This defines how the patch file should be named http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/submit.html --Tushar. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
